The article you’re about to read is from our reporters doing their important work — investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers’ businesses have been impacted. That’s why The Capistrano Dispatch is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insider’s program here. Thank you.

LARRY KRAMER, San Juan Capistrano

I just had a wonderful vacation in Yellowstone Park. What an amazing place. It is difficult to underestimate the foresight shown by officials in the government who established our first national park.

What I also found amazing is how members of the National Park Service are concerned about the effects of climate change on this beautiful park. The following are the park service’s words, not mine:

The park has fewer days of those glittering, silent winter vistas. Wolves have few days of easy hunting for ungulates in the deep snow. Bear hibernation cycles have altered. Spring comes earlier and snow melts out of the mountains more quickly. In summer, the rivers run slower and the water is warmer. Fire season is longer and fires will become more frequent and intense. Forest insect pests have decimated tree populations. In the future, grizzly bears may have less of their most nutritious foods such as white bark pine nuts and army cutworm moths.

However, I also found the National Park Service is taking positive action by adopting sustainability measures to improve energy efficiency, install renewable energy systems and conserve water.

Trustworthy, accurate and reliable local news stories are more important now than ever. Support our newsroom by making a contribution and becoming a subscribing member today.

About The Author Capo Dispatch

comments (1)

  • As the Dispatch points out in its Editor’s note, in defending Brian Maryott’s statement about the Green New Deal congressional bill, the writer makes no effort to differentiate between the Democratic Party sponsored bill and the policy statement with the same name on the Green Party website. In so doing, it is not clear whether he is intentionally trying to confuse the reader or sincerely believes that the connection to the far-left Green Party is important. The latter position makes no more sense than a liberal trying to tarnish a Republican Party sponsored bill by associating it with a more radical position espoused by the far-right John Birch Society.

    Regarding the writer’s statement about “History being the best indicator of concept viability” I am glad the founding fathers did not follow that advice in 1776, nor the Congress and state legislatures when women were granted the right to vote in 1920.

    His efforts to instruct his children in the analysis of political issues, including the admonition to “filter out the hyperbole,” are admirable, though I think his actions did not live up to his ideals in this case.

comments (1)

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>